Posts Tagged ‘obstruction’




Related article:

Democrats are badly blowing it against Trump. A brutal new TV ad shows how.

Trump-Caligula copy


600 Ex-Federal Prosecutors (and Counting) Say Being President Is The Only Thing That Saved Trump


FBI Told Former Agent Not to Help 9/11 Victims Build Case Against Saudi Arabia

Author of 9/11’s famed “Phoenix Memo” was told White House’s pursuit of warm relations with kingdom comes first

Former Senate intelligence chair Bob Graham calls FBI’s action “a fundamental assault on the principle of democracy”


People like that agent are obtuse and willfully blind that it’s not just the Saudis, it’s the USA that is the Godfather to them. Pointing at the Saudis is nonsensical given the Treasonous protection of same by US high officials. The problem is much closer to home.

28 Pages of Treason



The enemy is within.

FBI agent Robert Wright is continuing to protest and fight the cancellation of the Vulgar Betrayal investigation (see August 2000). In January 2001, he claims that his supervisor tells him, “I think it’s just better to let sleeping dogs lie.” FBI agent John Vincent backs up the allegation. [ABC NEWS, 12/19/2002] In March 2001, Wright meets with the Chicago special agent-in-charge, who appears to be Kathleen McChesney, given that Wright calls this person “she” and McChesney held that position since January 1999. [FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 12/2001; FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, 6/2/2003] He tells her that “the international terrorism unit of the FBI is a complete joke.” Within three weeks, the FBI opens another disciplinary investigation on Wright, charging that he had supplied classified information to an assistant US attorney. Wright is later cleared of the charges. In 2002, Wright will claim, “This was a pathetic attempt… before the Sept. 11th attacks, to further silence me from going public about the FBI’s negligence and incompetence.” [CNN, 6/19/2003; NEW YORK POST, 7/14/2004] A lawyer speaking for Wright after 9/11 will blame Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Michael Chertoff for refusing to take Wright’s concerns seriously before 9/11. Chertoff will later be promoted to head the Department of Homeland Security. [FOX NEWS, 5/30/2002]

The BBC later reports, “After the elections, [US intelligence] agencies [are] told to ‘back off’ investigating the bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that anger[s] agents.” This follows previous orders to abandon an investigation of bin Laden relatives in 1996 (see February-September 11, 1996), and difficulties in investigating Saudi royalty.[BBC, 11/6/2001] An unnamed “top-level CIA operative” says there is a “major policy shift” at the National Security Agency at this time. Bin Laden could still be investigated, but agents could not look too closely at how he got his money. One specific CIA investigation hampered by this new policy is an investigation in Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan and his Khan Laboratories. Khan is considered the “father” of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons capability. But since the funding for this nuclear program gets traced back to Saudi Arabia, restrictions are placed on the inquiry. [PALAST, 2002, PP. 99-100] Also in early 2001, FBI agent Robert Wright, attempting to pursue an investigation into Saudi multimillionaire Yassin al-Qadi, is told by FBI superiors, “it’s just better to let sleeping dogs lie”(seeJanuary-March 2001). Reporter Greg Palast notes that President Clinton was already hindering investigations by protecting Saudi interests. However, as he puts it, “Where Clinton said, ‘Go slow,’ Bush policymakers said, ‘No go.’ The difference is between closing one eye and closing them both.” [PALAST, 2002, PP. 102]


The New Yorker details a lengthy collection of facts about the 9/11 plot and the hijackers, only to spin them away with this:

“What was needed was cooperation with other federal agencies, but for reasons both petty and obscure those agencies chose to hide vital clues from the investigators most likely to avert the attacks.”

Petty?  So now we’re handing excuses to the CIA to cover its high treason?  This is the standard media fallback position when this issue is breached.  The FBI vs. CIA “petty infighting” myth is what the problem is, according to corporate spinmeisters.  Petty infighting isn’t criminal, apparently, and so no harm no foul.  It is inconceivable that deliberate agency, conscious decisions could have factored into letting the 9/11 attacks succeed.  Despite the overwhelming abundance of evidence suggesting that conscious decisions were made to let the attacks proceed, this cannot be printed in corporate mainstream journals.

The Al Qaeda Switchboard

This convenient “petty” excuse, like covering up alleged “embarrassment” serves to gloss over the entire post-9/11 cover-up and protection of the Saudi regime (and others).  American pseudo-intellectuals lap up this piss.

The phrase also completely ignores the obstruction of FBI field agents by their own headquarters, specifically Coleen Rowley’s case.


As people are reading this old post again, how many of you know that “fifty” CIA personnel knew that the hijackers were in the country prior to the attacks? How many of you know the source and why we know this?

It isn’t broadcast on mainstream corporate junk news.




New paperattempts to tackle all the inconsistencies and omissions concerning the lack of fighter interceptors during the attacks.  These events are very complex, shrouded in secrecy and obfuscated by conflicting stories.  Here are the paper’s main findings:

  • The key people responsible for managing a hijacking were absent from their command posts right in the crucial hours.
  • Important telephone and radio connections didn´t work until after the attacks were over.
  • A hijacked plane disappeared in a radar gap, and nobody is willing to explain.
  •  A wargame projecting a hijacking was taking place simultaneously.
  •  The airbase that should have protected the capital was not able to send fighter jets within an hour of time.
  • Interceptors from alert bases were scrambled with unexplained delays and then diverted
    several times.


The systematic failure of every level of the US air defense on the morning of September 11th provides one of the clearest “smoking guns” in the full complicity of key elements of the US government and defense department in those attacks.

In his new peer-reviewed article published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, author and researcher Paul Schreyer outlines many of these key anomalies and the way they have been carefully covered up by the so-called 9/11 investigations.

This is the GRTV Feature Interview with your host James Corbett and our special guest, Paul Schreyer.